Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277052023 2025:GAU-AS:16208 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7093/2023 M/S APEEJAY TEA LIMITED A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APEEJAY HOUSE 15 PARK STREET KOLKATA 700016 AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT TALAP P.O. TALAP TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786156 REP BY THE MANAGER TAXTION AUTHORIZEN REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY SAGAR MANDAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LT. ANIL KUMAR MANDAL RESIDING AT 6/17/7 KAILASH GHOSH ROAD BEHALA KOLKATA PIN 7000008 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER (BAKIJAI) TINSUKIA O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Dutta Senior Advocate Mr. J Das Page No.# 2/4 Advocates for the respondent(s) : Ms. U Das Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.11.2025 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U Das the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the communication dated 11.08.2023, issued by the respondent No.2 to the District Magistrate officer-cum-Bakijai Officer, Tinsukia, as well as the Bakijai Proceedings being Bakijai Case No. TINSU/WC/1/2023. 3. Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is inconceivable that the respondent No.2 had in exercise of the powers conferred upon him had taken up the task of resolution of disputes of contractors’ bills against the petitioner company. The learned Page No.# 3/4 Senior Counsel submits that the respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction or authority to do so. 4. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that not only the respondent No.2 adjudicated the bills of the contractors, but also issued a certificate to the Bakijai Officer, Tinsukia which has resulted in initiation of Bakijai Case No. TINSU/WC/1/2023. He further submitted that on the basis of the said Bakijai case, steps have been taken by the respondent No.3 for recovery from the petitioner. 5. It is seen that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 11.12.2023 had issued notice and also stayed the order passed in Bakijai Case No.TINSU/WC/1/2023. It is also seen from the records that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.2. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition reveals that such actions have been taken, keeping in mind the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, ‘the Act of 1970) as well as the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act of 1936’). 6. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 7. A perusal of the communication dated 11.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 to the District Magistrate-cum-Bakijai Officer, Tinsukia and the enclosure thereto reveals that the claims mentioned therein are contractual claims made by the various entities against the petitioner company. Under no circumstances, these claims would come within the ambit of the Act of 1970 or even the Act of 1936. 8. Under such circumstances, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that on Page No.# 4/4 a complete misconceived notion, the respondent No.2 had issued the communication dated 11.08.2023 to the District Magistrate-cum-Bakijai Officer, Tinsukia. It is also the opinion of this Court that the respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction or authority to do so in respect to those contractual bills. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The impugned communication dated 11.08.2023, issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia to the District Magistrate-cum-Bakijai Officer, Tinsukia is without jurisdiction and authority and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. (ii). The Bakijai Proceedings being Bakijai Case No.TINSU/WC/1/2023 pending before the Certificate Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia also stands quashed in view of the quashing of the communication dated 11.08.2023. JUDGE Comparing Assistant